Today's Global Warming Rant. [ArthurK]Bumped

You may wonder why I keep writing posts like this. "Surely these Global Warming advocates have no credibility anymore! This is a dead issue."

First off, don't call me Shirley.

Second, even though a large and growing part of the general public has had it with the Global Warming movement, many of our leaders and wannabe leaders still buy into it! Entrenched bureaucrats make decisions based on this. Light Bulbs. Light Bulbs! So it's not enough to be skeptical about the GW movement, you have to crush it.

Therefore even though I consider this a dead horse, I still beat it.

Here's a couple of stories you should know about that need a little more space than the sidebar.

There's been a lot of speculation recently about the effects of cosmic rays on global weather. The idea is that cosmic rays create little specks of crap in the upper atmosphere which promote cloud formation. And that cloud formation has an impact on the Earth's temperature. And increases in cosmic rays could lead to more clouds. It's reasonable to want to know more about this if you want to understand current and future climate.

CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Welt Online that the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment.

"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,"

...

The unusual "gagging order" could have been issued because the results of CLOUD are really, really boring, muses Calder. Or, it could be that the experiment invites a politically unacceptable hypothesis on climate.

(use the comments to insert your own sarcastic comment at this point)

The rest of the linked article has a pretty graphic showing cosmic rays making little specks of crap and a chart comparing cosmic ray little speck of crap creation and temperature.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which grants itself climate authority, states that our "Level of Scientific Understanding" of the effects (of the sulphate aerosols) range between "low" and "very low,..."

And There We Go. If you're going to ask us to do things like spend 40 trillion dollars over the next 30 years to reduce emissions, I'd like a better understanding of what the hell goes on in the atmosphere than "low to very low".

Rest of the article has interesting things such as - if Chinese emissions are cooling things off why is it that most of the cooling is in the Southern Hemisphere while the emissions are in the Northern?